The fact that you're still on about how Gore didn't do that is just proof that you, and all those people you're concerned were ignored, did actually ignore what Gore said.

Which means we're back to the idiocy of people arguing that Clinton failed to address the issues facing the prototypical blue-collar coal miner, when that's exactly what she did - those people just ignored what she said and focused on what they thought she meant.

There's nothing that that person can say to convince those people. Absolutely nothing.

Are we talking about Gore 15 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago or today? We may not be on the same page on that one

Also the old cliché about only getting one chance to make a first impression applies somewhat

You are right that some people will be unreachable (and probably because of other issues like abortion as well) but others might, if still not wholly convinced, become less hostile to the platform and more amenable to voting Democrat on the basis of other issues

Yeah, seriously. Aside from the generally disingenuous bullshit that's consistently pulled by everyone who ever brings him up, he's not even relevant anymore outside of climate denial circles. There's no value whatsoever in entertaining talk about him, so let's ignore the asshats who keep pushing for it and focus on discussing people and talking points that actually matter.

The fact that you're still on about how Gore didn't do that is just proof that you, and all those people you're concerned were ignored, did actually ignore what Gore said.

Which means we're back to the idiocy of people arguing that Clinton failed to address the issues facing the prototypical blue-collar coal miner, when that's exactly what she did - those people just ignored what she said and focused on what they thought she meant.

There's nothing that that person can say to convince those people. Absolutely nothing.

Are we talking about Gore 15 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago or today? We may not be on the same page on that one

Check out the time when the article was published. That gives you a minimum threshold. Gore's been on this ever since the start.

Quote:

Also the old cliché about only getting one chance to make a first impression applies somewhat

Just throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks, eh? Motivated reasoning is a hell of a drug.

The good news is that such [renewable energy] standards really work. The environmental benefits are large. Over their first seven years, such standards produced large cuts in carbon emissions — perhaps as much as 659 million metric tons.

At the same time, the standards turn out to be quite expensive. In their first seven years, they increased average electricity prices by about 11 percent in the 29 adopting states. (The residential sector experienced the largest increase.) In those years, the cumulative costs were about $125 billion.

Is that cost worthwhile? The authors estimate that over their first seven years, the cost of RPS policies, per ton of carbon dioxide abated, is $130 at a minimum. (The evidence leaves a fair bit of uncertainty, and the actual figure may be as high as $460.)

By way of comparison, the Barack Obama administration adopted a “social cost of carbon” of about $50 per ton (in 2019 dollars), and it used that figure to decide on the stringency of regulatory requirements. The $130 figure is also a lot higher than the price of permits to emit a ton of carbon dioxide in the world’s cap-and-trade markets. In California, for example, the current figure is around $15, and in the European Union, it’s about $25. [...]

To know what to do about climate change or any other environmental problem, it’s best to be disciplined about the actual consequences, rather than to think about good guys and bad guys.

The difference between regulation and market-based ways of reducing carbon emissions may seem trivial, but it really should be the central debate among those pushing for action. At a cost of $125bn, the US reduced emissions by 660 million tons. But we could have reduced emissions by 5 billion tons instead (at the higher EU price), if we had gone after low-hanging fruit instead. That's not a small difference...

The difference between regulation and market-based ways of reducing carbon emissions may seem trivial, but it really should be the central debate among those pushing for action. At a cost of $125bn, the US reduced emissions by 660 million tons. But we could have reduced emissions by 5 billion tons instead (at the higher EU price), if we had gone after low-hanging fruit instead. That's not a small difference...

The pieces you snipped out are pretty important. For instance:

Quote:

Does this mean that renewable-portfolio standards are a bad idea? Not necessarily.

According to some estimates, the social cost of carbon is a lot higher than $50 — perhaps in excess of $200. If that is right, the $130 figure starts to look a lot better. In addition, renewable-portfolio standards reduce a wide range of air pollutants, not just carbon dioxide.

Greenstone and Nash add that renewable-portfolio standards might promote innovation, ultimately producing significant decreases in prices. If so, a lack of cost-effectiveness, in the relatively short term, should not be decisive.

I'm not here to argue that the premise of the article is wrong. Largely because your article largely sidesteps the whole "regulation vs market" approach, and indicates the final line of your quote.

The difference between regulation and market-based ways of reducing carbon emissions may seem trivial, but it really should be the central debate among those pushing for action. At a cost of $125bn, the US reduced emissions by 660 million tons. But we could have reduced emissions by 5 billion tons instead (at the higher EU price), if we had gone after low-hanging fruit instead. That's not a small difference...

Do we have any estimate of of what the market price would actually be if we reduced the quota by 5 billion tonnes? You seem to be assuming that it would be around $25, and not $125.

If the difference is that we are paying $130 per tonne of carbon reduction now, rather than $130 in 10 years time, then is the actual cost only the interest of borrowing that $130 for 10 years? We might even come out ahead if the market cost is higher than $130 in 2030, or we might be far behind if carbon emissions are down 90% but the market cost is still only $30 per tonne.

Essentially we have paid to make improvements to the electricity supply that we need to make, and we have deferred improvements to everything else that we also need to make. As long as they all get done soon, and all get done at close to a fair price, the actual order isn't particularly important. But if we are subsidising investments that were going to be made anyway, (rather than mandating them), then we could be making better choices.

Generally I'm concerned that the current cap and trade markets aren't doing a huge amount to drive improvements in efficiency, and the reductions in emissions are driven largely by a switch from coal to natural gas that would have happened regardless, and a switch to wind and solar that also became inevitable as costs fell. The amount of investment required to produce the renewable cost reductions might be much the same in any scenario - it doesn't matter how the energy producers are incentivised to order the next thousand turbines, the manufacturers get the same economies of scale when the order is placed. It would be far more obvious that cap and trade was driving improvements if there was a sustained increase in the cost of emissions, and if there is a fall due to technological progress, we want to cut the cap faster.

Do we have any estimate of of what the market price would actually be if we reduced the quota by 5 billion tonnes? You seem to be assuming that it would be around $25, and not $125.

I don't know what the supply curve for carbon emission offsets looks like, but $25/tonne is for the US, $15/tonne is for the EU. The global average, according to this study is $3.30/tonne and it goes as low as $0.10/tonne in some places. Which is to say, I don't think $25/tonne is an optimistically low average cost to use for this back of the envelope calculation.

What Sunstein's later comments argue is that we might still want to do it if we're just really underestimating the social cost of carbon... and I agree with that. However, it's most definitely not the first thing we want to be doing. We should start thinking about that once the low-hanging fruit has been picked, since every tonne is just as bad as the other and we're blowing a LOT of shit into the atmosphere that could very quickly and very cheaply be prevented. It's all additive, so leaving low-hanging fruit around longer is just making it even harder and costlier to respond later.

It's a bit like worrying about plastic straws while some countries are dumping all their trash into the ocean, because it's cheaper than constructing a landfill. We might want to worry about plastic straws anyway (probably not), but we should probably start with the major sources of pollution. And before anyone says "we can do both," we clearly can't -- because all the press cycles that go toward plastic straws and bags aren't being used to argue for other policies. Attention is a limited resource and when everything becomes a priority, nothing is.

Quote:

If the difference is that we are paying $130 per tonne of carbon reduction now, rather than $130 in 10 years time, then is the actual cost only the interest of borrowing that $130 for 10 years?

The opportunity cost is all the carbon we didn't reduce over the years... and while you could argue this leads to new technologies that may have unexpectedly large benefits, one could also argue that it makes environmental policies seem much more expensive than they really are and hence reduces public support for them. If you think the price of combating climate change is a 10% higher utility bill, you might be much less willing to support it than if it turns out to be an extra $1 fee on a roundtrip ticket to Europe.

Quote:

Generally I'm concerned that the current cap and trade markets aren't doing a huge amount to drive improvements in efficiency, and the reductions in emissions are driven largely by a switch from coal to natural gas that would have happened regardless, and a switch to wind and solar that also became inevitable as costs fell.

I don't think the switch to natural gas or the cost decline of solar were inevitable: they're partially a response to investments that are being made as a result of the price on carbon (or an expectation of such a price).

I'm fully on board that emission certificates could cover wider parts of the global economy (they only cover a small part right now) and that quantities could be reduced at a much faster pace. Part of that is that, similar to the sulfur cap-and-trade scheme, regulators just greatly overestimated how expensive offsetting carbon emissions would be. I think the price that was floated in the EU was somewhere around $50/tonne, not the $15/tonne it ended up being. That's good news regarding our ability to prevent the worst of climate change... just means we can phase out the number of emission certificates faster than originally planned. Now if only someone were proposing we actually do this... less sexy than overthrowing capitalism, but it could be signed into law by the end of the year, particularly since all the infrastructure (the emissions trading market) is already in place.

Do we have any estimate of of what the market price would actually be if we reduced the quota by 5 billion tonnes? You seem to be assuming that it would be around $25, and not $125.

I don't know what the supply curve for carbon emission offsets looks like, but $25/tonne is for the US, $15/tonne is for the EU. The global average, according to this study is $3.30/tonne and it goes as low as $0.10/tonne in some places. Which is to say, I don't think $25/tonne is an optimistically low average cost to use for this back of the envelope calculation.

What Sunstein's later comments argue is that we might still want to do it if we're just really underestimating the social cost of carbon... and I agree with that. However, it's most definitely not the first thing we want to be doing. We should start thinking about that once the low-hanging fruit has been picked, since every tonne is just as bad as the other and we're blowing a LOT of shit into the atmosphere that could very quickly and very cheaply be prevented. It's all additive, so leaving low-hanging fruit around longer is just making it even harder and costlier to respond later.

It's a bit like worrying about plastic straws while some countries are dumping all their trash into the ocean, because it's cheaper than constructing a landfill. We might want to worry about plastic straws anyway (probably not), but we should probably start with the major sources of pollution. And before anyone says "we can do both," we clearly can't -- because all the press cycles that go toward plastic straws and bags aren't being used to argue for other policies. Attention is a limited resource and when everything becomes a priority, nothing is.

The places that worry about plastic straws and bags are the ones that already stopped just dumping the trash into the ocean. And please elaborate on which countries that are... unless they are so poor that landfills and a waste management infrastructure are far too expensive, I don't know any that do that.

The places that worry about plastic straws and bags are the ones that already stopped just dumping the trash into the ocean. And please elaborate on which countries that are... unless they are so poor that landfills and a waste management infrastructure are far too expensive, I don't know any that do that.

Yeah, but plastic is a global problem. If you solve the last straws entering the oceans from Europe and the US, you don't solve anything.

The Yangtze river alone dumps about 1.5 million tons of plastic into the ocean every year.

Turns out, most slums in fact don't have proper waste management infrastructure... and there's a whole lot of people living in them, looking for places to dump their trash. Never mind factories dumping waste into rivers.

The places that worry about plastic straws and bags are the ones that already stopped just dumping the trash into the ocean. And please elaborate on which countries that are... unless they are so poor that landfills and a waste management infrastructure are far too expensive, I don't know any that do that.

Yeah, but plastic is a global problem. If you solve the last straws entering the oceans from Europe and the US, you don't solve anything.

The Yangtze river alone dumps about 1.5 million tons of plastic into the ocean every year.

Turns out, most slums in fact don't have proper waste management infrastructure... and there's a whole lot of people living in them, looking for places to dump their trash. Never mind factories dumping waste into rivers.

Sure. However, your argument was a global one. Places like CA can tackle plastic bags and straws, while Manila and India tackle completely filthy rivers. One doesn't preclude the other.

Otherwise, your argument is just the idiotic Climate Denier argument recycled for plastic: "there are other places that would still put out CO2/plastic, so we shouldn't do anything!"

Sure. However, your argument was a global one. Places like CA can tackle plastic bags and straws, while Manila and India tackle completely filthy rivers. One doesn't preclude the other.

Otherwise, your argument is just the idiotic Climate Denier argument recycled for plastic: "there are other places that would still put out CO2/plastic, so we shouldn't do anything!"

Oh, but environmentalists in California absolutely could do something to clean up those rivers. It costs money to do so (albeit not all that much) and they could donate there. They could set up NGOs that prevent plastic from going into the ocean. But they don't. Instead, there's an non-profit that goes to the pacific garbage patch (an area twice the size of Texas) to recover plastic and bring it back to San Francisco, where it is set to be recycled.

So there's absolutely a tradeoff to be made: do we invest money in collecting plastic and other trash half way to Hawaii and return it to San Francisco, or do we go to the places that dump trash into the ocean and prevent it from entering in the first place? We've decided to spend money on the former, when the latter would surely be much more effective: you save all the effort of retrieving the trash and could just "recycle" it before it hits the ocean. Again, we could be doing both... and again, we're not doing the thing that's more effective. Now, it can't possibly be true that people who want to remove garbage from the oceans don't realize that it's more effective to do so at a single source (say, a river entering the ocean) than going out, collecting it, and bringing it back to the US... so we should ask ourselves why incentives are such that "removing" trash gets donations, while "preventing trash from going in" does not.

I can think of countless other examples like this. California regulated residential water use during its drought, while ignoring entirely agricultural water use (which is both vastly larger in scope and unbelievably more wasteful). That is, politicians (and, perhaps, voters) decided to regulate the guy trying to water his lawn, but not the guy flooding his field deliberately to let water evaporate (so as to not lose his water rights; and saving the small cost of installing an efficient irrigation system). If they had decided to do the latter, there simply wouldn't be a need for the former anymore.

Sure. However, your argument was a global one. Places like CA can tackle plastic bags and straws, while Manila and India tackle completely filthy rivers. One doesn't preclude the other.

Otherwise, your argument is just the idiotic Climate Denier argument recycled for plastic: "there are other places that would still put out CO2/plastic, so we shouldn't do anything!"

Oh, but environmentalists in California absolutely could do something to clean up those rivers. It costs money to do so (albeit not all that much) and they could donate there. They could set up NGOs that prevent plastic from going into the ocean. But they don't. Instead, there's an non-profit that goes to the pacific garbage patch (an area twice the size of Texas) to recover plastic and bring it back to San Francisco, where it is set to be recycled.

So there's absolutely a tradeoff to be made: do we invest money in collecting plastic and other trash half way to Hawaii and return it to San Francisco, or do we go to the places that dump trash into the ocean and prevent it from entering in the first place? We've decided to spend money on the former, when the latter would surely be much more effective: you save all the effort of retrieving the trash and could just "recycle" it before it hits the ocean. Again, we could be doing both... and again, we're not doing the thing that's more effective. Now, it can't possibly be true that people who want to remove garbage from the oceans don't realize that it's more effective to do so at a single source (say, a river entering the ocean) than going out, collecting it, and bringing it back to the US... so we should ask ourselves why incentives are such that "removing" trash gets donations, while "preventing trash from going in" does not.

I can think of countless other examples like this. California regulated residential water use during its drought, while ignoring entirely agricultural water use (which is both vastly larger in scope and unbelievably more wasteful). That is, politicians (and, perhaps, voters) decided to regulate the guy trying to water his lawn, but not the guy flooding his field deliberately to let water evaporate (so as to not lose his water rights; and saving the small cost of installing an efficient irrigation system). If they had decided to do the latter, there simply wouldn't be a need for the former anymore.

I can think of countless other examples like this. California regulated residential water use during its drought, while ignoring entirely agricultural water use (which is both vastly larger in scope and unbelievably more wasteful). That is, politicians (and, perhaps, voters) decided to regulate the guy trying to water his lawn, but not the guy flooding his field deliberately to let water evaporate (so as to not lose his water rights; and saving the small cost of installing an efficient irrigation system). If they had decided to do the latter, there simply wouldn't be a need for the former anymore.

Sort of.

Most of the urban restrictions were indirect: the state told water agencies (like the one I work at) to use x% less water or face fines. Each agency then had to come up with its own way to enforce that on customers. For those of us who get water from the state, that made a lot of sense. For those who don’t, it was probably more contentious.

The state controls water supplies from the Delta, and allocates each year’s available supply as well as it can. When supply is low, we get proportionally less - and that applies to farmers, too. At the peak of the drought in 2015, we barely got any water from the State Water Project (the aqueduct system that carries Delta water to quite a lot of CA), which in our case here typically accounts for 40% of our supply. So everyone fell back on groundwater. With the local creek running drier, we could only get that usual quantity by drawing water faster than it could be replenished. We did, and farmers really did. But everyone doing it knew they’d pay for it later, so egregious agricultural water use was not common.

At the time, the only related legislation affecting farmers was that they would have to stop overdrawing groundwater supplies by 2040 if that pumping was affecting a nearby river or tributary thereof (something along those lines). A recent court ruling seems to have thrown out that 20+ year grace period, so next drought they’ll be in deeper trouble. But what I’m trying to say is that losing a major part of their State Water Project allocation was a big deal to farmers even if they didn’t have consumption limits imposed on them.

Doesn’t mean I particularly like them. They’d get rid of the Sacramento River if they could.

Interviews with the co-founder of the Sunrise Movement, which has been pushing for much of what the Green New Deal has become for years and Obama's climate czar, who had also worked as EPA chief under Clinton.

The Sunrise founder talks about taking bold actions and not really compromising. Doesn't really say how they'd get major legislation passed but did say they would try to primary Democrats who aren't on board. Reporter didn't follow up and ask how that would help get the votes for passing any aspects of the GND. Replacing more centrist Democrats or those who simply wouldn't play ball with Sunrise's demands isn't going to get them enough votes. The seats they should be targeting are Republican ones.

She gave a non answer when asked about lack of union support. AFL-CIO came out against the GND but she claimed unions understand climate change oosts them money. But how that would translate into support is unclear.

The more establishment person talked about working on different solutions for different industries, different for say auto emissions vs. power plant emissions, and using building blocks towards sustaining 60 Senate votes. Boring nuts and bolts stuff but probably necessary to get legislation passed to change policy.

Trump administration is on a collision course with CA and other states over CAFE standards.

Trump is trying to push it down to 37 MPG by 2025 while CA is hewing to the 54.5 MPG that Obama had set. They tried to negotiate a middle ground but negotiations broke off in February and Trump is expected to issue new order in the summer.

The auto manufacturers signed a letter urging the Trump administration to set a compromise because they don't want to deal with bifurcated standards. Also, what Trump does by executive order could be easily reversed by a Democratic president.

They had originally lobbied the Trump administration to roll back the Obama standards but then realized CA and other states would fight it.

Quote:

Mr. Trump’s new rule, which is expected to be made public this summer, would all but eliminate the Obama-era auto pollution regulations, essentially freezing mileage standards at about 37 miles per gallon for cars, down from a target of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. The policy makes it a near certainty that California and 13 other states will sue the administration while continuing to enforce their own, stricter rules — in effect, splitting the United States auto market in two.

For automakers, a bifurcated market is their nightmare scenario. In the letter to Mr. Trump, they warned of “an extended period of litigation and instability” should his plans be implemented.

The letter was delivered to the White House on Thursday morning, the same time as a similar letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, according to a senior auto industry lobbyist.

In the letter to Mr. Newsom, the automakers said they would like to see a standard that is “midway” between the current Obama rules and the rollback proposed by Mr. Trump.

The letter to Mr. Trump said, “We strongly believe the best path to preserve good auto jobs and keep new vehicles affordable for more Americans is a final rule supported by all parties — including California.”

A White House spokesman, Judd Deere, in an email put the blame on California, saying the state “failed to put forward a productive alternative.”

Mr. Newsom said he is not interested in a “midway” deal requiring California to loosen its rules. “A rollback of auto emissions standards is bad for the climate and bad for the economy,” he wrote in an email. “I applaud the automakers for saying as much in their letter today to the President. We should keep working towards one national standard — one that doesn’t backtrack on the progress states like California have made.”

The letters are the latest twist in Mr. Trump’s effort to roll back regulations on auto manufacturing, an industry he has vowed to support. Some industry chief executives and lobbyists have been privately telling the White House for months that the president’s efforts may do more harm than good, but Thursday’s action represents a particularly strong pushback.

“Our thinking is, the rule is still being finalized, there is still time to develop a final rule that is good for consumers, policymakers and automakers,” said Gloria Bergquist, a vice president at the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

Criticizing the president’s plan comes with risk for the automakers. The White House has courted their support for his moves, and, privately, some officials have said that they fear industry criticism could lead the president to retaliate by imposing tariffs on auto imports. That, too, could be painful, because many cars and components are now made or partly assembled across the border in Mexico or Canada.

I honestly don't see how the automakers can meet the goal in 6 years anyway, since they've been pumping out those 'roided excuses for station wagons ("crossover SUVs") instead of actual cars for years.

I honestly don't see how the automakers can meet the goal in 6 years anyway, since they've been pumping out those 'roided excuses for station wagons ("crossover SUVs") instead of actual cars for years.

Dead easy, if gas crested £10 / gallon, fuel economy would once more be the most important consideration.

I don't know if you can really do it that way; people who buy those big SUV's don't seem that price sensitive; they're already paying $15-20K more than they need to for a car. their land yachts while realizing that thing's going to burn through gasoline (and insurance money) twice as fast as a little car. You could make it a little more evident by adding a front-loaded carbon emission tax of say, $100/ton on cars that don't meet the fuel efficiency standard. A sharp price demarcation right at the fuel efficiency standard would put an exclamation point on the standard.

Even better if you then take the tax collected and subsidize cars that beat the standard.

I don't know if you can really do it that way; people who buy those big SUV's don't seem that price sensitive; they're already paying $15-20K more than they need to for a car. their land yachts while realizing that thing's going to burn through gasoline (and insurance money) twice as fast as a little car. You could make it a little more evident by adding a front-loaded carbon emission tax of say, $100/ton on cars that don't meet the fuel efficiency standard. A sharp price demarcation right at the fuel efficiency standard would put an exclamation point on the standard.

Even better if you then take the tax collected and subsidize cars that beat the standard.

I like the way you are thinking

This may go around that whole rioting in streets-schtick while putting pressure on the right behaviour.

Auto makers can just meet the CA standard and they're covered by the more lax federal standard as well.

CA did set the standard for smog control with things like catalytic converters. Domestic and foreign manufacturers applied the CA requirements across their global fleet.

So why are they suggesting CA and the Trump admin. compromise? Because while they're willing to exceed the 37 MPG that the Trump administration is ready to set, they want something less than the 54 MPG that CA is going to require.

Dumb approach because CA has leverage as one of the biggest if not the biggest markets in the world.

Even if the Trump admin or maybe the SCOTUS forces CA to comply with the federal standard, as soon as there's a Democratic president, the Trump standard is going to be thrown out, so they might as well try to meet the 54.

Presumably, they weren't happy when Obama set that level but Obama wasn't going to set a requirement which wasn't feasible.

They just want to keep milking SUVs and trucks for as long as they can.

Auto makers can just meet the CA standard and they're covered by the more lax federal standard as well.

CA did set the standard for smog control with things like catalytic converters. Domestic and foreign manufacturers applied the CA requirements across their global fleet.

So why are they suggesting CA and the Trump admin. compromise? Because while they're willing to exceed the 37 MPG that the Trump administration is ready to set, they want something less than the 54 MPG that CA is going to require.

Dumb approach because CA has leverage as one of the biggest if not the biggest markets in the world.

Even if the Trump admin or maybe the SCOTUS forces CA to comply with the federal standard, as soon as there's a Democratic president, the Trump standard is going to be thrown out, so they might as well try to meet the 54.

Presumably, they weren't happy when Obama set that level but Obama wasn't going to set a requirement which wasn't feasible.

They just want to keep milking SUVs and trucks for as long as they can.

Because the federal government has the right to preempt the standards and he'll take it to the courts if necessary where it will be judged by conservative appointees who can find a states rights argument against anything that would reduce corporate profits and a supremacy argument for anything that will increase them.

Some Republicans are trying to roll out some weak version of carbon taxes, as they see the prospect of losing younger generations because of GOP denialism.

Quote:

Luntz is still doing polling and focus groups, and his firm, Luntz Global, recently ran a poll on behalf of the Climate Leadership Council (CLC), a group led by senior Republican statesmen James Baker and George Shultz.

The CLC is pushing a “carbon dividend” policy, which would implement a rising carbon tax and refund the revenue directly to taxpayers — while also rolling back some (allegedly) unnecessary regulations. The CLC is backed by a PAC, Americans for Carbon Dividends, run by ex-senator lobbyists Trent Lott and John Breaux. (I wrote about the CLC proposal here.)

Luntz polled the carbon dividend policy in May. It got two to one support among Republicans, four to one support overall, six to one support among Republicans under 40, and eight to one support among swing voters under 40. Once it was explained to voters in focus groups, most of them got behind it.

But Grover Nordquist has rallied Republicans against any form of carbon tax, because it's well, a tax:

Quote:

In response, Norquist pulled together a group of 75 conservatives, mostly from various think tanks and right-wing advocacy organizations, to sign a letter to Congress. Here’s the full text:

"We oppose any carbon tax. A carbon tax raises the cost of heating your home in the winter and cooling your home in the summer. It raises the cost of filling your car. A carbon tax increases the cost of everything Americans buy and lowers Americans’ effective take home pay. A carbon tax increases the power, cost, and intrusiveness of the government in our lives."

The letter was signed by such notable conservative intellectuals as Thomas Pyle of the American Energy Alliance, Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Phil Kerpen of American Commitment.

But the danger for Democrats is signing onto this weak sauce CLC proposal:

Quote:

As for Democrats, they will face their own choice soon. If they take power in 2020, there will be many voices in Washington counseling them to bargain themselves down to the flawed and inadequate policy being put forth by the retired Republicans of the CLC. After all, it’s “bipartisan,” which automatically makes it the preferred option of knee-jerk “centrists.”

If Republicans hope to enact solutions to the problem that serve everyone’s long-term interests, this is where they should start.nationalreview.com

It’s a concession that will gain Democrats nothing, since only a tiny handful of Republicans support the climate dividend policy, even in theory, and none are likely to show up to help pass it through a Democratic Congress. But supporting a “bipartisan” solution will allow moderate Dems to write pompous op-eds in the big newspapers, which they treasure.

The smarter move would be to see Luntz’s memo for what it is: a sign that climate hawks are winning. Public opinion is being dragged along by the enthusiasm and activism of the climate youth movement. So that movement should keep pushing, keep dragging, and everyone in the Democratic Party should welcome it.

Eventually, the GOP will come along on climate change, driven by forces beyond the control of Grover Norquist or the Koch brothers. Between now and then, Democrats have a chance to establish generational ownership of a political issue that will dominate the 21st century. Slowing down to bargain now would completely miss the point, both politically and atmospherically.

Oregon Republican State Senator threatens to kill Oregon State Troopers if they come to try to make him go to a special legislative session to vote on climate change legislation:

Quote:

The governor’s hint that she would consider sending troopers in the event of a second walkout triggered an aggressive response from Boquist, which was captured by a KGW news team at the Capitol.

“This is what I told the superintendent,” Boquist said, referring to OSP Superintendent Travis Hampton. “Send bachelors and come heavily armed. I’m not going to be a political prisoner in the state of Oregon. It’s just that simple.”

But the danger for Democrats is signing onto this weak sauce CLC proposal:

Why is this "weak sauce?" It captures the externality of carbon emissions, it changes incentives to promote green technologies, and it doesn't screw over poor people with a regressive tax (which is what you'd get if you spent that money on "green" projects). There's no reason why you'd have to fund green investments using revenue from a carbon tax: we don't use cigarette tax revenue to fund lung cancer research either.

It's basically what every economist would tell you is the optimal policy. (Pretty much equivalent to cap & trade.) It's the policy Democrats should immediately sign on to and pass in bipartisan fashion. Let Trump veto it and Biden can sign it in 2021.

Why do you need the regulation? If you have a carbon tax, you can set it to get whatever carbon emissions you want. If you want to decrease emissions further, increase the tax. When gas prices went up, people bought fewer Hummers and switched to more efficient cars. You don't need to pass regulation to make the hummer more efficient.

You also no longer need to prescribe that the carbon reduction has to come from more efficient trucks or from scrubbers for manufacturing plants that don't yet exist (but will become available when it's economically efficient to install them).

This is exactly why the tax is efficient: markets find the most efficient places to reduce emissions. That's how you get a lot of bang for the buck.

The key question is, what is the price on carbon they are advocating for, how quickly does it ramp up, and how many permits will they issue? If the answer those questions are not at least $50/ton, increasing by something like $5/year, and few permits (which are reduced every year), then there's no point.

I absolutely do not trust that Luntz is legitimately trying to reduce emissions here. He is one of the "weaponizing language to elect Republicans" people.

The key question is, what is the price on carbon they are advocating for, how quickly does it ramp up, and how many permits will they issue? If the answer those questions are not at least $50/ton, increasing by something like $5/year, and few permits (which are reduced every year), then there's no point.

With a carbon tax, there are no permits. You just increase the tax over time and watch as emissions go down. But $50/ton also seems incredibly high. The price in the EU is less than $10/ton and that's already working very well. It's likely cheaper to reduce emissions in the US still. The goal here really should be to start cutting now, because all the easily-preventable carbon that we're emitting now is just as harmful (if not more) than the hard to reduce carbon we're going to be emitting for a long time.

Quote:

I absolutely do not trust that Luntz is legitimately trying to reduce emissions here. He is one of the "weaponizing language to elect Republicans" people.

I'm not so sure: even among Democrats, preventing climate change doesn't rank very highly among issues. I don't even think any of the Democratic presidential debates will be on climate change.

We're quick to forget that Republicans, too, were in favor of cap & trade for sulfur emissions. Turns out, they didn't like acid raid either.

Sure, there are some nutjobs who actually believe climate change is a massive conspiracy. But I suspect most of them aren't actual deniers -- they don't want to cede the political win to Democrats or they oppose the policies that they think will be used (regulation, rather than market-based interventions). They'd almost surely be favorable to a bipartisan carbon tax.

But if state politics are any guide, Democrats will oppose the carbon tax because the money gets returned to individuals, rather than used to pay for X (be it green programs, job retraining, or whatever).

That'd really be the most frustrating outcome: Republicans pushing a carbon tax that will be opposed by Democrats. And that might actually sway some voters: if you truly believe that climate change is catastrophic, you shouldn't oppose measures that we know for sure will reduce emissions just because you want to use the tax revenue to support your pet projects.

These people do not want to engage. They want to create a cosmetic, fake environmental policy as a competitive point against Democrats. I do not believe for a minute they would negotiate in good faith to actually pass one that would affect emissions. Aside from that, it’s explicitly structured as a zero net tax increase, so it would be offset by other tax cuts to the wealthy.

These people do not want to engage. They want to create a cosmetic, fake environmental policy as a competitive point against Democrats. I do not believe for a minute they would negotiate in good faith to actually pass one that would affect emissions.

So if Republicans maintain control of the Senate, you're fine with not passing any environmental policy for at least another two years? You're willing to have policies that will be sabotaged by a majority of states even if Democrats control congress long enough? And you're willing to risk the policy unraveling the next time Republicans take control of Congress and the White House?

The problem with giving up on bipartisanship is that the alternative isn't Democrats ramming through their policies. The alternative is that we're done passing policies. Democrats just don't have the overwhelming votes at the federal and state level to get things done on their own and they surely don't have a monopoly on power forever into the future. This is also why not a single state has managed to pass a carbon tax.

Quote:

Aside from that, it’s explicitly structured as a zero net tax increase, so it would be offset by other tax cuts to the wealthy.

The proposal is pretty specific: the revenue collected from the carbon tax is refunded to people in equal amounts. E.g. everyone gets a $500 check at the end of the year.

This is actually redistributive, because wealthier people on average have a larger carbon footprint than the poor.

It's also a way you don't torpedo a way to reduce emissions because people can't agree on what to do with the money. If you want to spend on pre-k, that may be extremely worthwhile, but don't confound it with reducing carbon emissions.